Wikivoyage talk:Administrators' handbook

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search


The idea of creating an :en version Administrator handbook has been in the air for a while, so I decided to plunge on this. Does this look right? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:33, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

It's a good start, but it should be called Administrator's handbook, because that's the current job title. If admins are renamed to janitors -- a move I still support -- then the book can change as well. (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:14, 12 April 2008 (EDT)
OK, I like the cute janitor title too, but it's easier to just move the page ;) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:00, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
BTW, what stops us from renaming Administrators to Janitors? It feels much closer to truth, and doesn't give the illusion of extra power or burden of responsibility. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 15:17, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
Nothing much; I don't think anyone ever opposed the change. We could reopen the discussion at Project:Administrators#”Administrator” name change, and see if anyone objects over the course of several weeks, then make the change. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:32, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Protection expiry[edit]

How do you set the expiry time on protection? I know only how to protect pages for an infinite time span. The terms should be in this handbook. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:38, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

I usually type in text in the "Expires" field and hope that it gets parsed correctly - for example "4 hours" will result in protection that expires after four hours. "infinite" (or blank) apparently results in permanent protection. I'm not entirely sure what date format would be used to (for example) set an expiration of "noon tomorrow". -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:21, 7 December 2008 (EST)
Thanks, this does seem a lot easier than I remember it being. I'll try and write up something useful. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:47, 8 December 2008 (EST)
If you type in the date in full format (December 25, 2008), it sets the expiration time at around the same clock hour on that day. (WT-en) Texugo 00:58, 8 December 2008 (EST)


There's already a wts:Manual for administrators... (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:30, 15 November 2008 (EST)

At wts:Talk:Manual_for_administrators#Comments we discussed the possible need for language version-specific manuals, as the policies governing use of sysop tools differ a bit from version to version. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:30, 15 November 2008 (EST)

direction of this page[edit]

After we hone our actual policies, I think this page needs to be just a list of pointers to policies on how to user the mop, but not actually describe or try to sum up said policies, or be considered a policy in itself... it's simply a helper for guiding new admins to relevant policies – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 14:04, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Block recommendations[edit]

I'm very unsure of which of the following boxes are safe to tick (in dealing with spambot accounts and spambot ips):

  • Prevent account creation
  • Prevent user from sending e-mail
  • Automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent IP addresses they try to edit from
  • Watch this user's user and talk pages
  • Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address

Advice? --Peter Talk 17:01, 29 October 2012 (CET)

I think it should be left on default (Prevent account creation and Automatically block last IP checked). There's no reason to prevent sending e-mail, or watch user page. sumone10154(talk) 06:10, 2 November 2012 (CET)
I want to ban the spambot & the user name permanently, but am reluctant to block IP addresses permanently because someone else may use them later. I therefore untick the "Automatically block the last IP address used..." and "Prevent logged-in users..." boxes whenever I remember, which is maybe half the time. However, I've never been sure if this was actually the right thing to do. Pashley (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I seem to recall that someone did a test a while back and discovered that when permanently blocking a user and an IP address that the IP address isn't actually permanently blocked, although it would be good to get something confirmed officially if anyone can provide a link. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
IP adresses are blocked for 24 hours, and this remains logged on Special:BlockList. The system also automatically blocks further IPs the user uses while logged in with the same duration. Savh (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm a tad confused by the blocks and bans section here. In one of the sentences written is a recommendation that "spambot blocks (which should not be permanent and should not prevent account creation) which are generally set for three months, or six months if the bot has already been blocked before". But in the sentences immediately following, there is also a recommendation that "The form's boxes "Prevent account creation" and "Automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent IP addresses they try to edit from" are automatically checked, and almost always should be left checked." So ought we permit blocks of the underlying IP behind an account (we call them "autoblocks" on enwp btw) and in what circumstances?

Also, I disagree with the guideline immediately following it discouraging blocking talkpage and email accesses: generally speaking spambots are likely to just search for the nearest page they could paste their spam in, and if they're prevented by the MediaWiki software from pasting anywhere else, their own talkpage is the most likely page for it. For other users however, I'd be fine with allowing talkpage access, even going so far as to indefinitely give as many chances to appeal as possible, at least until the community's patience runs out. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe the first paragraph you cited refers only to IP addresses, while the second refers to registered users. In the first case we don't want to block a shared address and thus prevent legitimate users from registering or editing, while in the second we want to make sure that a mis-identified user has a chance to appeal. Feel free to update the language on the page to be clearer. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Spambot IPs are frequently open proxies or virtual private servers, and we're safe blocking those for a while. --Rschen7754 04:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I edited this section to reflect current consensus and practice, as I found it completely misleading. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Move apostrophe in this page's name[edit]

I suggest we move Wikivoyage:Administrator's handbook to Wikivoyage:Administrators' handbook since there's more than one admin. Nurg (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' guide? --Saqib (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

"Psychological problems"[edit]

"One might object, on the basis that there are some unusually persistent editors, who appear to have serious, untreated behavioral/psychological problems, who just won't give up, and continue to add their unwanted edits daily, even for years!"

Fellow Wikivoyagers, would you object if I deleted the highlighted text? Equating mental illness with malicious behaviour is pretty offensive. While "mad=bad" is not an uncommon attitude to encounter in the world, it's not really something you'd expect from the Administrators' Handbook of a respected travel guide.

I notice the same wording has been here for a very long time and assume that nobody else has been upset by it, which is why I've raised the issue rather than just deleting the text. Thanks, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead and reword it at will. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Ikan Kekek. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit in my name?[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Is there anyway an edit could be done that states is by me but I did not do? this edit I did not make. Have not been on this page for some time. Only other explication I can think of is accidentally pressing rollback from the Recent changes or Watchlist page which I may have had open at that time. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The automatic edit summary matches that from the [rollback] button, which is a single click if you're logged in as an admin and therefore possible to hit by mistake. The "undo" provided to all users is a bit harder to hit by mistake as it brings up the old revision and waits for the user to click "save". K7L (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Definitely did not do an undo, as you say too many actions required. Probably hit rollback by mistake. Guess I need to be more careful when I have multiple windows open and trying to do too many things at once. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I've done that before myself. It's especially easy to do on a mobile phone. It would be nice if the MediaWiki software didn't make it easier to rollback than to undo. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Rollback as one click is useful but I always use it on a history difference page where you can see what will happen, not sure it should be in the Watchlist and Recent Changes pages. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
It would be great to turn off Admin functionality when just doing standard editing, and turn it back on when you are cleaning up vandalism/other cleaning up. I don't edit in mobile mode in part because of these kinds of issues. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
If it was easier to 'undo' than rollback, then rollback would serve no purpose. Powers (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there a way to protect both pages at once?[edit]

Is there a way to simultaneously protect e.g. a user page and user talk page, or an article and its talk page, rather than having to protect first one, then the other? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)